Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9463945" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Two people can have different ideas of what is fun without those different ideas being utterly incompatible. That's the point you keep skipping over, as if it is assumed that because two people find different things fun, they are automatically 100% incompatible and MUST absolutely HATE the things someone else loves.Such things are quite rare, and 99.9999999% of the time, two people can enjoy different things and still enjoy spending time together doing the same things because they recognize the value of give and take. "You can have your fun now, and I'll have my fun later," or "we'll do what I want this time, and we'll do what you want next time." I, personally, don't like steak. My dad loved steak. I would cook steaks for him, not because I like them, but because I know he does. And then he'd cook something I like, even if it's not really his cup of tea. Or vice versa.That's one form compromise can take--one person accepting delayed gratification, so long as the delay is reasonable, and preferably both/all sides wait their turn at different times. Another is mixing things together: in a TTRPG context, having fights that have persuade-able enemies, so it is possible for both the butt-kicker and the diplomancer to have fun in the same combat, but in different ways. A third form is diversification of labor: have the PCs doing different things in different places, but which all contribute to the same over-arching goal. A fourth is making use of the fact that we don't have to run a purely linear timeline, we can jump around, having flashbacks or (more rarely) flashforwards, where folks can contribute differentially without needing to wait.Your thesis rests on the idea that two people genuinely cannot, even in principle, find a way for both of them to get what they want. In a TTRPG context, that is essentially always not true--and if it IS true, then it is essentially always the case that at least one person is not participating in good faith. Either they want to always be the person who gets gratification, and the other person always gets delays with no gratification (bad faith by "heads I win, tails you lose"), or they want the other person to always be stuck only doing what's right in front of them, rather than contributing via flashback or side story or separate participation (bad faith by spotlight-hogging), or some other similar thing.The vast, vast, vast, VAST majority of difficulties like this can, in fact, be resolved if all participants genuinely desire a fun time to be had by all. The moment someone doesn't actually want everyone to have fun, they are participating in bad faith. Period.</blockquote>

Verification